2 of 2

In its editorial commending Dr. Frist for breaking with the President, The New York Times urged him to go one more step and support cloning the embryos. But Dr. Frist is horrified by cloning for research. He is entirely opposed to fetal farms, and human-animal chimeras, and the other horrors that lie in store. We hope we can look to him to challenge the inhuman ambitions of biotech researchers and lobbyists as they move far beyond the funding of embryo research to the full-blown Brave New World of human commodification and "cures" at any price. We look to him to use his immense influence as Majority Leader in ensuring that the Senate finally passes the Brownback-Landrieu cloning ban, bringing the U.S. into line with states as diverse as Germany, France, Australia, and Canada—and the recent United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. Should he not, at the least, make the cloning ban a key condition of his support for loosening embryonic stem-cell research funding?

Moreover, his Cove speech lays out a series of these horrors, and suggests that his stem-cell funding move is key to stopping them in their tracks: cloning, fetal farming for body parts, human-animal combos, "scientists playing God." "If we don't act," he states, "others who do not share our values will define the rules."

To be candid, this is somewhat bizarre. Why, we must ask, if overturning the Bush ban on funding destructive embryo research is the key to stopping the chamber of horrors, is much of the Senate support for overturning that ban coming from lawmakers who also favor cloning for research?

Far from hastening the horribles, the Bush stem-cell funding policy has been the line in the sand that is holding them at bay. Not only did the nation rally round the President in August of 2001, but socialist Germany copied his position (exactly) because of its wisdom and practicality, and the 25-member European Union came close to following suit. On the other hand, the biotech industry and its surrogates, who have so far been successful in preventing a cloning ban from passing the Senate, want far more than a few extra embryos.

Yet however much we may agree with the President's policy, we welcome Dr. Frist's re-stated commitment to fight the evils of unethical biotech, and we look to his leadership and determination to stave off the evils of the Brave New World.

Other headlines

Looking Ahead: "Scientific and technological advances produce new benefits for consumers, new controversies for politicians, and new legal issues for the Supreme Court. A future Justice Harriet Miers or Chief Justice John Roberts, sitting on the high court for a couple of decades, just might have to decide whether sentient robots have some rights, whether scientists have a right to clone humans for use in experiments, and even whether judges should retire at the age of, say, 126." So writes journalist Neil Munro in National Journal for October 8.

A Cloning Star: Bernard Siegel, the affable Florida attorney who has become one of the major boosters of cloning for research, has received his reward from the Stem Cell Action Network in the form of their 2005 Stem Cell Advocate award. There's no doubt that Bernie Siegel has been busy: he has lobbied the UN on cloning (unsuccessfully) and staged various high-profile stunts and pulled together famous names to sponsor his Genetics and Policy Center.

Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

October (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49